Caribbeaa Journal of Crimiaclogy aad Social Psychology January 1996 1(1) 8-37. ISSN 1025 5591 © 1996 Psychological Research Centre, UWI, St. Augustine Campus, Trinidad TOWARDS A CARIBBEAN CRIMINOLOGY: PROSPECTS AND PROBLEMS Richard R. Bennett American University, USA James P. Lynch American University, USA There is a growing trend in social science, especially criminology, of establishing sub-disciplines that focus on a particular substantive area or research question. Often these sub-disciplines seem to be formed more to provide a focal point for scholars and to provide visibility for their concerns than for any compelling intellectual reason. The purpose of this paper is to examine the need for a sub-discipline that focuses on the Caribbean as an unique area of study in criminology. We briefly review the major theories of crime causation in criminology and assess whether the uniqueness of the Caribbean renders them inappropriate or incapable of explaining and predicting crime. We then discuss what is currently known about crime in the Caribbean, and what further knowledge is required. Finally, we discuss the problems and prospects of creating a viable criminology for the Caribbean. Introduction There is a growing trend in social science, and specifically in criminology, of establishing sub-disciplines that focus on a particular substantive area or research question. As a result, there is an increase in the number of journals and scholarly associations whose purpose is to highlight and report research findings in narrowly defined sub-areas within a discipline (e.g. Division of Women and Crime, the Division of International Criminology, and the Division on Critical Criminology of the American Society of Criminology). Often these sub-disciplines seem to be formed more to provide a focal point for scholars and to provide visibility for their concerns than for any compelling intellectual reason. It is not clear that these groups have contributed to theory in any meaningful way. Indeed, this "ghetto-ization" of like-minded people could retard theory development by reducing the scrutiny to which their arguments and research findings are subjected. TheBENNETT ANDLYNCH = 9 counter argument, of course, is that without this separation minority voices would not be heard in the discourse of the discipline. Thus, the sociological importance of such specialization and its importance for building theory, directing research, and forming social policy are matters currently under debate. The purpose of this paper is to examine the need for a sub- discipline that focuses on the Caribbean as a unique area of study in criminology. We will briefly review the major theories of crime, then assess whether the uniqueness of the Caribbean renders our current theories inappropriate or incapable of explaining and predicting crime in the region and whether a sub-discipline of Caribbean criminology is intellectually necessary. Finally, we will discuss some issues of crime in the Caribbean, what further knowledge is required, and what are the prospects of accessing and collecting the necessary data in the region. Major Theories Major theories in criminology can be usefully grouped as being macro-social theories or micro-social theories (Nettler, 1984). The former attempt to explain changes in the level and the distribution of crime across groups in society, while the latter attempt to explain the occurrence of specific crimes or the distribution of criminal motivation. In keeping with this focus, macro-theories examine the attributes of societies and their change over time while micro-theories explore the attributes of small groups and individuals. Within these two major groupings, theories can be sub-divided into conflict theories and consensus theories. Conflict theories assume that law is largely a tool of elites used to maintain their advantage (Quinney, 1980; Young, 1989; Young and Mathews, 1992). In contrast, consensus theories assume that the law expresses the moral consensus in society (Nettler, 1984). Consistent with these assumptions, conflict theories focus on the process of marginalization and how marginalization contributes to the criminalization of activity and the use of coercion in response to crime (Chiricos and DeLeon, 1992). This coercion, of course, maintains the advantage of the elites. Consensus theories, on the other hand, emphasize the socialization process, since criminal activity is the result of imperfect internalization of societal norms.10 TOWARDS A CARIBBEAN CRIMINOLOGY Within these categories of theory a great deal of useful work has been done to specify the unique conditions that result in marginalization and coercion or in more or less perfect socialization. One of the greatest problems in building an integrated theory of crime, however, is the limited amount of work that has been done to link micro and macro theories in either the conflict or consensus schools. Usually, scholars who take a micro focus assume certain macro social conditions and vice versa. There are a few notable exceptions where macro-social theories have been linked with micro-social processes to provide a cogent picture of how society influences crime. One of these exceptions is the human ecology theories of crime formulated by the Chicago School of sociology. The other is development theories. The human ecology theories of crime mainly examine the influence of urbanization and immigration on the level and distribution of crime in areas (Shaw and McKay, 1969; Park et al, 1967; Bursik and Webb, 1982). They link these macro-social factors to the process of socialization through the concept of disorganization. Immigrants and migrants are drawn to the city by the promise of jobs in industry. Since these recent arrivals are without resources, they gravitate to the inexpensive and least desirable residential areas which are usually at the fringe of commercial development. The heterogeneity of these areas and the transience of the population makes the negotiation and maintenance of social order extremely difficult. As a result, there are high levels of crime. High crime rates are unique to these "disorganized" communities, and endure even when the ethnic or racial composition of the Populations in the transitional areas change. Development theories are similar to the human ecology theories in that they explicitly link macro and micro Processes. The macro- social processes attendant to industrialization affect the social organization of societies in a manner that disrupts socialization. The transition from an agrarian to an industrial society transforms the social bonds in society from those based upon primordial ties to those based upon more tenuous commitments (Shelley, 1981; LaFree and Kick, 1986; Bennett, 1991a). Durkhiem's (1964) characterization of the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity is often used to describe this process. This transition results in both a temporary and a permanent change with regard to crime. The transition from agrarian to industrial economiesBENNETT AND LYNCH u causes an immediate anomic condition for migrants until they adjust to the new basis of social relations in the urban center. This adjustment period is accompanied by high crime rates similar to those posited by the human ecologists. Even after this transition is complete, however, the change in the basis of social interaction from rural to urban settings results in permanent increases in the volume of property crime (as things worth stealing become “available, for instance) and a decrease in violent crimes. The transition from kinship to economic groupings as the basis of social organization reduces the amount of inter-personal violence, since attachments that become conflictual can be easily abandoned for others. At the same time, this social mobility coupled with the greater availability of goods makes it more difficult to guard one's property. Hence the increase in theft (Bennett, 1991b). Conflict theorists have a somewhat different view of the development process. They agree with their consensual colleagues that industrialization destroys the primordial basis of agrarian society and replaces it with economic relations. These relations result in the creation of two classes--those who own the means of production and those who sell their labor. The relationship between these two classes is conflictual rather than inter- dependent. Law is seen by these theorists as not intended to promote the inter-dependence of the economically defined groups, but to ensure the exploitation of the masses by the elites. Conflict theorists predict that industrialization will lead to the concentration of crime in the laboring classes. Moreover, what is legally defined as crime will oscillate according to the need of the ower holders to discipline the laborers (Piven and Cloward, 1993). Thus, crime (and coercion) will increase in periods of high unemployment and decrease in periods of full employment. Is the Caribbean unique? The human ecology and development theories described briefly above are powerful. They have been shown to fit the level and distribution of crime in some societies (Bennett, 1991a; LaFree and Kick, 1986; Bennett and Shelley, 1985; Messner, 1982; Krohn, 1978). In the absence of evidence.to the contrary, it would be wise to assume that these theories would be useful in explaining and understanding crime in the Caribbean. Is there, in fact, any